Patna High Court
Shahid @ Shahid AkhtarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the circumstances did not warrant its grant.
Summary
Shahid Akhtar applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case of alleged kidnapping of a 20‑year‑old girl, registered under Sections 366 and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the girl went missing after a phone call indicated she was in a relationship with the petitioner, and a Special Investigation Team was formed to locate her. The petitioner argued that the FIR was lodged 25 days after the alleged incident, that the complaint only raised suspicion, and that the girl had voluntarily eloped, asserting his clean antecedent. The opposing party highlighted that the petitioner has three prior criminal cases and that the victim remains missing, contending that bail would jeopardize the investigation. The court, after considering the missing victim and the petitioner’s undisclosed antecedents, refused anticipatory bail and dismissed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the victim being missing and the seriousness of the alleged offences under Sections 366 and 87.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 366, 87
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- missing person
- criminal antecedents
- delay in FIR
- Section 366
- Section 87
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54914 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2025 Thana- KESARIA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Shahid @ Shahid Akhtar, Son Of Nasim Akhtar @ Nasim Akhtar Ansari,
Resident of village- Agarwa, Ps - Town Motihari, Dist- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Gulam Jaffar son of Mustafa Hussain village- Bairiya, Ward no. 2, Ps-
Kesariya, Dist- East Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.P.P. for the
State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with
Kesariya P.S. Case No. 66 of 2025 registered for the offences
under Sections 366 and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
alleged that on 23.01.2025 his daughter, aged about 20 years,
had gone to Motihari, but she did not return till evening. It is
alleged that on 22.01.2025 a phone call was received on the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54914 of 2025(5) dt.21-01-2026
2/4
mobile and the person from the other side had asked, 'where are
you?' upon which the informant told that he was in Maharastra.
It is further alleged that another phone call was received on the
mobile phone of the informant's son and the caller stated that
she is in a relationship with Shahid (petitioner) for the last nine
years. The informant has alleged that he has the copy of such
audio clip and despite hectic search, his daughter could not be
located and he has raised suspicion that daughter has been
kidnapped and killed by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and there is an
inordinate delay of 25 days in lodging of the FIR. It has further
been submitted that the informant has not stated that the
petitioner has abducted or kidnapped his daughter rather only
suspicion has been raised about the same. It has been stated that
the victim is a major lady and the present case is a case of love
affair and she has willfully eloped. It has next been submitted
that the petitioner has no concern whatsoever with the missing
of the victim girl and his name has been maliciously dragged
into the present case. It has been submitted that the petitioner
has clean antecedent.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54914 of 2025(5) dt.21-01-2026
3/4
as learned APP for the State have vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail. It has been stated by the learned counsel for
opposite party no.2 that the girl is still traceless and a report was
called from the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran and
from perusal of the same, it would be known that she has not yet
been located and SIT has been formed to recover the missing
victim. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has
informed that the petitioner has stated in Paragraph '3' of the bail
application that he has clean antecedent, however, he has three
antecedents. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has
furnished the number of the case in which the petitioner is an
accused, which are (i) Town P.S.Case No. 64 of 2020, (ii)
Complaint Case No. 690 of 2024 and (iii) Complaint Case No.
2130 of 2024. It has been pointed out that on this count alone
the present bail application may be dismissed, as he has not
come before this Hon'ble Court with clean hands.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case,
especially the fact that the victim girl is still missing, as also the
fact that the petitioner has suppressed three criminal antecedents
against his name, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on
anticipatory bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54914 of 2025(5) dt.21-01-2026
4/4
7. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is
rejected.
8. The application stands dismissed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
U T
Checking your session…